This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

Originally Posted by Luna Tick

I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect. In short, you can own a so-called assault rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but it has to be semi-automatic. You can still own an automatic one if you can find a grandfathered pre 1986 one, but it will be extremely expensive. In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to own fully automatic rifles like the AR-15. Seems like the same people who own a semi auto one without committing murder will be just as responsible with a fully automatic one. Then again, I'm not a gun owner myself and have just started to research this. In any event, vote your opinion. Should the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle? Are you for overturning the 1986 ban?

I don't agree with the restrictions on automatic weapons that came with the 1986 law, but it did have some good things in it:

Opens up interstate sales of long guns, within some limitations. In-person sales can only be to residents of an adjacent state. Other sales must go through an FFL transfer.

Allows interstate transport of firearms, provided no local laws are broken in the process.

Makes it illegal for anyone to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. Previously, it was only illegal for dealers to do this.

Provides any prohibited persons can get relief of their disability by applying to the Treasury Secretary. This has been repealed in practice by the program being specifically unfunded in the federal budget.

It prevents the government from creating a list of gun owners from dealer records.

Limits the number of inspections on a dealer by the BATF without a search warrant.

Allows FFL holders to engage in business away from their normal business location. I.E. at a gun show.

Allows ammunition shipments through the US Postal Service.

Ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing or prohibited ammunition such as explosive.

Eliminates the FFL requirement for ammunition only dealers.

Specifically states that those disposing of personal firearm collections do not need an FFL.

To get an FFL, firearms do not have to be a principle business activity.

Re: Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

If you want to take a full auto out to the range, better bring you folding money, because it will
cost a lot. In bulk I think .223 is about 30 cents each, so $9.00 per mag. This could add up fast.
As far as legal, I think it should be allowed, but the legal bump stocks are almost as good.
For those who have not seen one, the video below shows it is almost indistinguishable from full auto. Incredible Bump Fire! - YouTube

Re: Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

No reason to ban newer full auto weapons, they would be regulated through Class-III. Now the NEED for a full auto weapon is moot. Who needs a 400 hp car or a bottle of booze with gold flakes in it? I have no need for one but that doesn't mean they can't release more to the general public. (I imagine some owners of the current full auto weapons would be pissed, their weapons would lose half their 'value' if more weapons came on the market.)

Anywho, every so often I fire an LE full auto, reminds me of the day. Now most full autos have a selector switch, you don't have to rock and roll, infact even the old M60 could be fired single shot with a little practice.

Re: Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

Not to bump an old thread, but this seems pretty relevant again.

I voted Yes. It's not like full autos are even better than semi autos for mass shootings anyways. See the North Hollywood Shootout. They had full autos and didn't even kill anyone. There's no point in restricting them.

Re: Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

Originally Posted by Luna Tick

I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect. In short, you can own a so-called assault rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but it has to be semi-automatic. You can still own an automatic one if you can find a grandfathered pre 1986 one, but it will be extremely expensive. In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to own fully automatic rifles like the AR-15. Seems like the same people who own a semi auto one without committing murder will be just as responsible with a fully automatic one. Then again, I'm not a gun owner myself and have just started to research this. In any event, vote your opinion. Should the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle? Are you for overturning the 1986 ban?